Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 55 The investigation can be concluded, active and ongoing or be occurring in the future.200 It is not limited to investigations that are conducted by a local authority.201 In other words, it can include investigations conducted by other organizations (e.g., a police investigation). 2. Does one of the following exist? a) Could release of the information interfere with a lawful investigation? Section 14 of LA FOIP uses the word could versus “could reasonably be expected to” as seen in other provisions of LA FOIP. The threshold for could is somewhat lower than a reasonable expectation. The requirement for could is simply that the release of the information could have the specified result. There would still have to be a basis for asserting the harm could occur. If it is fanciful or exceedingly remote, the exemption should not be invoked.202 Interfere with includes hindering or hampering an investigation and anything that would detract from an investigator’s ability to pursue the investigation.203 Interference can occur on concluded, active, ongoing or future investigations.204 When there is a review by the IPC, the local authority is invited to provide a submission (arguments). The local authority should describe how and why disclosure of the information in question could interfere with a lawful investigation. Local authorities should not assume that the harm is self-evident on the face of the records. b) Could release disclose information with respect to a lawful investigation? It is only necessary for the local authority to demonstrate that the information in the record is information with respect to a lawful investigation to meet this part of the test. With respect to are words of the widest possible scope; the phrase is probably the widest of any expression intended to convey some connection between two related subject matters.205 200 Leo v Global Transportation Hub Authority, 2019 SKQB 150 at [24]. 201 Leo v Global Transportation Hub Authority, 2019 SKQB 150 at [25]. 202 SK OIPC Review Reports LA-2007-001 at [117], LA-2013-001 at [35], F-2014-001 at [149]. 203 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4 at p. 152. 204 Leo v Global Transportation Hub Authority, 2019 SKQB 150 at [24]. 205 The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) established the meaning of the phrase “in respect of” in Nowegijick v. The Queen, [1983] 1 SCR 29, 1983 CanLII 18 (SCC) at [39]. The SCC later applied the same
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==